Thursday, February 25, 2016

To date, Trump has actually enjoyed more support from Catholic voters than Protestants. Recent polls conducted by Monmouth University showed him with higher vote shares among followers of the Roman Catholic Church than with other Christians. In Iowa, he pulled 44% support from Catholic caucus-goers compared to 24% from Protestants. In New Hampshire polling, he took 30% of the Catholic vote, which was slightly higher than his 26% share among Protestants. In South Carolina, he currently holds 42% of the Catholic vote compared with 32% of the Protestant vote.

I find support for Trump in general to be baffling, particularly amongst Christians but disappointingly so amongst Catholics.

As the father of three daughters, I reserved the right to interview their dates. Seemed only fair to me. After all, my wife and I’d spent 16 or 17 years feeding them, dressing them, funding braces, and driving them to volleyball tournaments and piano recitals. A five-minute face-to-face with the guy was a fair expectation. I was entrusting the love of my life to him. For the next few hours, she would be dependent upon his ability to drive a car, avoid the bad crowds, and stay sober. I wanted to know if he could do it. I wanted to know if he was decent.

This was my word: “decent.” Did he behave in a decent manner? Would he treat my daughter with kindness and respect? Could he be trusted to bring her home on time? In his language, actions, and decisions, would he be a decent guy?

Decency mattered to me as a dad.

Decency matters to you. We take note of the person who pays their debts. We appreciate the physician who takes time to listen. When the husband honors his wedding vows, when the teacher makes time for the struggling student, when the employee refuses to gossip about her co-worker, when the losing team congratulates the winning team, we can characterize their behavior with the worddecent.

The leading candidate to be the next leader of the free world would not pass my decency interview. I’d send him away. I’d tell my daughter to stay home. I wouldn’t entrust her to his care.

I don’t know Mr. Trump. But I’ve been chagrined at his antics. He ridiculed a war hero. He made mockery of a reporter’s menstrual cycle. He made fun of a disabled reporter. He referred to the former first lady, Barbara Bush as “mommy,” and belittled Jeb Bush for bringing her on the campaign trail. He routinely calls people “stupid,” “loser,” and “dummy.” These were not off-line, backstage, overheard, not-to-be-repeated comments. They were publicly and intentionally tweeted, recorded, and presented.

Such insensitivities wouldn’t even be acceptable even for a middle school student body election. But for the Oval Office? And to do so while brandishing a Bible and boasting of his Christian faith? I’m bewildered, both by his behavior and the public’s support of it.

The stock explanation for his success is this: he has tapped into the anger of the American people. As one man said, “We are voting with our middle finger.” Sounds more like a comment for a gang-fight than a presidential election. Anger-fueled reactions have caused trouble ever since Cain was angry at Abel.

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Brian Sandoval, the centrist Republican governor of Nevada, is being vetted by the White House for a possible nomination to the Supreme Court, according to twopeople familiar with the process.Sandoval is increasingly viewed by some key Democrats as perhaps the only nominee President Obama could select who would be able to break a Republican blockade in the Senate.Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday pledged “no action” on any Supreme Court nomination before November’s election, saying the decision ought to be left to the next president.The White House declined to comment Wednesday for this story.

Gov. Brian Sandoval of Nevada supports abortion rights and, after the court’s same-sex marriage decision last year, said his state’s arguments “against marriage equality are no longer defensible.” He is also from a fast-growing and increasingly diverse swing state, is Hispanic and was state attorney general and a federal judge before becoming governor.

Not good enough for me (for what that's worth). Hopefully the Senate will reject him (and frankly anyone nominated by Obama) as promised.

Is it ever licit for a faithful Catholic to disagree with an authoritative, non-infallible teaching of a pope? Yes. If a person has inquired diligently into the teaching in question, and if after serious prayer and reflection, feels that fraternal correction is in order, then one may express this disagreement publicly as long as: (A) one’s reasons are serious and well-founded; (B) one’s dissent does not question or impugn the teaching authority of the Church; and (C) the nature of the dissent is not such as to give rise to scandal.

I’ve often thought that these would serve as good rules-of-thumb for disagreeing with almost anybody. You should have good reasons for your position; you should strive not to impugn the integrity or good intentions of your interlocutor; and you should argue in such a way as not to give scandal. One rarely wins over others (including bystanders) by brow-beating them; you usually succeed only in making your side look bad.

So much for papal teaching.

What about papal actions? Along with the gift of infallibility, do popes have the gift of impeccability (from the Latin peccatum, meaning “sin”), a special charism guaranteeing they never make mistakes?

The Church has never made this claim. Quite the contrary, those who have been the staunchest defenders of infallibility have always distinguished it from impeccability precisely because (A) it’s clear that any number of popes have committed grievous sins, and (B) it’s a matter of faith that every pope is a sinner, just like the rest of us, in need of God’s saving grace won by the death and resurrection of Christ. We don’t worship the man; we respect the office; we have faith in Christ’s promise to be with His Church until the end of the age and to send His Holy Spirit to guide and protect her.

Years ago someone told me that John Paul II didn’t give communion in the hand, which showed that John Paul II was condemning the practice. I suggested that if the pope wanted to communicate this message, he had plenty of official channels to do so. There is a species of papal idolatry that is, in the long run, not helpful. I wonder what my friend would say now. If he is still mistaking the pope’s personal actions for official papal teaching, he’s probably confused – and angry.

Watching a pope’s every action for its political significance is the sort of foolishness that caused certain people to condemn Christ for eating with (“yucking it up with”) prostitutes and tax collectors. Such actions were said to “cause scandal,” “sow confusion,” and “show support for the Church’s enemies.” Maybe; maybe not. “Time will tell where wisdom lies.”

Some popes have made major mistakes. But every pope makes some mistakes; they’re only human after all. If you want perfection and sinlessness, you’re looking for a church that doesn’t exist, an empty promise from the Father of Lies, not the one established by Christ.

Being confused or disappointed with a pope is a common enough state of affairs in Church history. But Catholics who imagine that they have the authority to set the canonical standard by which the teaching of this or any papacy can be judged are simply showing (A) that they have really been Protestants all along, and (B) that their view of authority is the one that characterizes too much of modern American politics: authority’s job is to do what I say and to crush my opponents.

The Church hasn’t always been well served by her popes. But then again, she has always been much worse off when she has given-in to the self-righteous voices of the mob – especially when they’re shouting “Crucify him.”

Self-righteous arguably being defined as those who insist, as an example, that not only is the Pope wrong on one or more issues, but he's a Marxist, a Socialist, a Peronista, someone who willingly allows his words to be twisted by the enemies of the Church. They clearly seem to be shouting "Crucify him" and all because he speaks in opposition to what they hold dear.

That popes are fallible in the ways that they are is as important for Catholics to keep in mind as the fact that popes are infallible when speaking ex cathedra. Many well-meaning Catholics have forgotten this truth, or appear to want to suppress it. When recent popes have said or done strange or even manifestly unwise things, these apologists have refused to admit it. They have tied themselves in logical knots trying to show that the questionable statement or action is perfectly innocent, or even conveys some deep insight, if only we would be willing to see it. Had Catholic bloggers and pop apologists been around in previous ages, some of them would no doubt have been assuring their readers that the Eastern bishops excommunicated by Pope Victor must have had it coming and that St. Irenaeus should have kept silent; or that Pope Stephen was trying to teach us some profound spiritual truth with the cadaver synod if only we would listen; or that Liberius, Honorius, and John XXII were really deepeningour understanding of doctrine rather than confusing the faithful.

This kind of “spin doctoring” only makes those engaging in it look ridiculous. Worse, it does grave harm to the Church and to souls. It makes Catholicism appear Orwellian, as if a pope can by fiat make even sheer novelties and reversals of past teaching somehow a disguised passing on of the deposit of faith. Catholics who cannot bear such cognitive dissonance may have their faith shaken. Non-Catholics repulsed by such intellectual dishonesty will wrongly judge that to be a Catholic one must become a shill.

The sober truth is that Christ sometimes lets his Vicar err, only within definite limits but sometimes gravely. Why? In part because popes, like all of us, have free will. But in part, precisely to show that (as Cardinal Ratzinger put it) “the thing cannot be totally ruined” -- not even by a pope.

With the shadow of Feser's piece as backdrop (do yourself the favor of reading the whole thing), I think it fair to suggest that Pope Francis has erred recently.

Paloma García Ovejero, Cadena COPE (Spain): Holy Father, for several weeks there’s been a lot of concern in many Latin American countries but also in Europe regarding the Zika virus. The greatest risk would be for pregnant women. There is anguish. Some authorities have proposed abortion, or else to avoiding pregnancy. As regards avoiding pregnancy, on this issue, can the Church take into consideration the concept of “the lesser of two evils?”

Pope Francis: Abortion is not the lesser of two evils. It is a crime. It is to throw someone out in order to save another. That’s what the Mafia does. It is a crime, an absolute evil. On the ‘lesser evil,’ avoiding pregnancy, we are speaking in terms of the conflict between the fifth and sixth commandment. Paul VI, a great man, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape.

Don’t confuse the evil of avoiding pregnancy by itself, with abortion. Abortion is not a theological problem, it is a human problem, it is a medical problem. You kill one person to save another, in the best case scenario. Or to live comfortably, no? It’s against the Hippocratic oaths doctors must take. It is an evil in and of itself, but it is not a religious evil in the beginning, no, it’s a human evil. Then obviously, as with every human evil, each killing is condemned.

On the other hand, avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one, or in the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear. I would also urge doctors to do their utmost to find vaccines against these two mosquitoes that carry this disease. This needs to be worked on.

The reference is to Congo in the late 1950s and early 60s, where Catholic nuns faced widespread sexual violence and the question was whether birth control could be used to avoid pregnancy after rape.

Francis said Paul VI “permitted” birth control in that context, which, to Anglo-Saxon ears, implies a formal juridical act. The line sparked a frenzy of fruitless Internet searches, as people went looking for a Vatican edict or decree that just doesn’t exist.

Here’s what happened: In December 1961, the influential Italian journal Studi Cattolici (“Catholic Studies”) published an issue in which three Catholic moral theologians agreed that in the Congo case, contraception could be justified.

The future Paul VI, at that stage, was still the Archbishop of Milan, and close to the currents that shaped Studi Cattolici. It was assumed the conclusions reflected his thinking. That appeared to be confirmed later when Paul VI made one of the authors, Pietro Palazzini, a cardinal.

Paul became pope in 1963, and never issued any edict writing that position into law. Thus, when pressed about it some years later, a Vatican spokesman could accurately say, “I am not aware of official documents from the Holy See in this regard.”

Still, the Vatican never repudiated the 1961 position, so the takeaway was that it remained a legitimate option. To Italians — and remember, Francis’ ancestry is Italian, and he’s very wired into the country’s ecclesiastical scene — that meant Paul VI approved.

If anything screams for clarity from the Vatican, I'm of the opinion that this fits the bill. Mr. Allen at Crux believes we're likely not to get that clarification.

Friday, February 19, 2016

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said on Thursday that he respects Pope Francis after bashing the pontiff earlier in the day for criticizing his plan to build a border wall.

"He has a lot of personality," Trump said during the CNN town hall on Thursday night in South Carolina. "He's very different, he's a very different kind of a guy, and I think he's doing a very good job. A lot of energy."

Earlier on Thursday, Trump said the pope publicly questioned his faith with a statement that said building walls "is not Christian." Trump called a religious leader questioning a person's faith "disgraceful."

But he told CNN's Anderson Cooper that after seeing the pope's actual statements, it seems nicer than what was originally portrayed.

"I think he said something much softer than was originally reported by the media," he said.

Trump added that the pope only knew one side of the story.

"Somehow the government of Mexico spoke with the pope. I mean, they spent a lot of time with the pope, and by the time they left, they made the statement," he said.

Asked what he thought the Mexican government's role was, Trump said, "they probably talked about 'isn't it terrible that Mr. Trump wants to have border security,' " he said.

"I think that he heard one side of the story, which is probably by the Mexican government," he said.

But Trump said the bottom line is that the country needs stronger border security.

"I don't like fighting with the pope, actually. I don't think this is a fight," he said.

Monday, February 15, 2016

In a shallow waste of time, energy, effort, and taxpayers’ money, KY State Rep. Mary Lou Marzian introduces this vindictive idiocy as legislation, even though she “concedes her bill will have little practical effect on the new law, she said the measure was written to hit opponents where it hurts”.

(CNN)Angered by a new law requiring women receive medical counseling at least 24 hours before an abortion, a Kentucky lawmaker decided she was going to "strike a nerve" with her political opponents -- in particular, the men.

State Rep. Mary Lou Marzian, a Louisville Democrat, has introduced a bill that would require any man seeking a prescription for drugs to treat erectile dysfunction -- such as Viagra, Cialis and Levitra -- to "have two office visits on two different calendar days" before receiving the desired medication.

Marzian's House Bill 396 would only allow married men access to the treatments and call on them to "produce a signed and dated letter" demonstrating the consent of their current spouse. They would also have to give a sworn statement -- "hand on a Bible" -- that the prescription would only be used for sex with their legal partners.

"As a woman and a pro-choice woman and as an elected official, I am sick and tired of men -- mostly white men -- legislating personal, private medical decisions," Marzian, a retired nurse and 22-year statehouse veteran, told CNN. "It's none of their business."

Earlier this month, Republican Gov. Matt Bevin signed into law a bill beefing up the state's "informed consent" requirement for women seeking an abortion. Previously, patients could listen to a phone recording that listed the potential health risks associated with the procedure. Now, women will have to speak to a medical professional in person or via video teleconference.

Passage of the new restriction set off a social media campaign against Bevin and anti-abortion lawmakers, and while Marzian concedes her bill will have little practical effect on the new law, she said the measure was written to hit opponents where it hurts.

"When I put this out here, I thought, you know, I will strike a nerve because what is more sacred to men than their ability to have sexual intercourse?" she said with a laugh. "Let's regulate that."

Flippant attitudes and petty actions like this are not helpful. Not helpful to her own cause (no tragedy there), but also not helpful to women in general. I wish women would quit doing things that reinforce the stereotype already.

It was not his vulgarity, his coarse language, his sexist attacks, or his crude aggressive name calling.

It was not his lies, mendacity, manipulation and innate dishonesty.

It was not his fake tan, fake teeth, fake hair and fake face.

It was not his history of buying politicians, scheming to grab property from old ladies, planned bankruptcies and running casinos.

It was not his bragging, racism, boasting and megalomania.

It was that little question thrown at him which turned out to be a curve ball.

The question was something like, “Who in your life is able to challenge you and say you are wrong? From whom do you take criticism?”

He stuttered and stammered before hemmed and hawed after saying weakly that his wife tells him when he’s wrong. He then went on to his usual line about how his is a winner, he is a billionaire. He is a successful businessman.

This, combined with his admission that he has “never said sorry to God” and “never apologized for anything” shows the true heart of darkness in Donald Trump.

If a man cannot see that he has done wrong and apologize and accept an apology, then it is impossible for him to repent, and if it is impossible for him to repent, then that man is lost. His heart is the same as that other beautiful created being who, from the beginning and forever is not able to bow his head or bow his knee.

Then someone else noticed a chilling detail from the first moments of the debate.

I was not sure what to expect from one of the most influential Catholics in the country. Scalia has a son who is a priest, so I assumed his faith would be alive. But I wondered if it would be the dry faith of a powerful intellectual or a faith that would inspire. It turned out to be the latter.

Scalia began his talk by considering the etymology of the word cretin and pointing out that the origins of the word may have derived from the French word for Christian, chretien. And truly, Scalia pointed out, members of Christianity, from the beginning of its history, have been considered fools for believing such things as miracles, particularly the miracle of the Resurrection.

But Scalia argued that it isn’t irrational to accept the testimony of eyewitnesses to miracles. “What is irrational,” he said, “is to reject a priori, with no investigation, the possibility of miracles in general and of Jesus Christ’s resurrection in particular — which is, of course, precisely what the worldly wise do.”

Scalia then went on to discuss the roots of this scorn for deep faith, even in the United States, a country that is widely considered to be deeply Christian from its very beginning. But Scalia pointed out that even among our Founding Fathers, this scorn for anything without sound rational basis (in their opinion) was evident.

Thomas Jefferson, a son of the Enlightenment, once revised the Gospels to “remove the gold from the dross.” Jefferson was convinced that the Gospels had some worthy information and some information that was added later by his “superstitious biographers.” Jefferson’s version of the life of Jesus removed the miracles, included some of Jesus’ ethical teachings, and then ended abruptly with Jesus’ death and the stone rolling over the tomb.

Scalia then went on to talk about a more modern example of the blindness of a rationalism gone too far. A priest near his home in DC was discovered to have the stigmata and statues would weep when he was near them. A Washington Postreporter witnessed the statue weeping and could only say, “There has to be a trick here.” Scalia asked the crowded room why non-believers don’t flock to places like this to verify for themselves. The answer is obvious he said, “The wise do not investigate such silliness.”

The wise do not investigate such things as the Resurrection or miracles because they believe they are informed enough about the world to know that such things are impossible. Therefore, they assume that people who actually believe in miracles are foolish and peasant-like. But they base their beliefs, not on investigation, but on flat out rejection of the possibility.

I can certainly relate to this arrogance. When I was an atheist, I disdained Christianity and believed that Christians were ignorant because their views did not fit in with my world view. This type of thinking is rampant in our society and is only too evident with discussion regarding such things as the Catholic view of contraception or Christian beliefs regarding marriage. The point of view of the wise is that only bigoted idiots would believe the things we believe. There can be no other explanation in the minds of the worldly wise. Our point of view is not even thought of as rational enough to be considered.

Scalia ended his talk by considering St. Thomas More, a man who died to defend a corrupt Church and papacy, and considered by many, including his wife, to be a fool for accepting martyrdom. More gave his life because he refused to sign an oath that disparaged the pope and Henry VII’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon. Scalia pointed out that Pope Clement XII, the pope during the time of More, was not one of the most reputable popes in history. And yet, More saw beyond the current circumstances and believed in the permanence of the Church that Jesus established.

As Scalia’s talk came to a close, he said to the crowded room, “I hope to impart to you the courage to have your wisdom regarded as stupidity.”

Saturday, February 13, 2016

I drink coffee only on Thursdays. This is partly because I am a weirdly patterned person. It’s also because I feel insecure ordering my preferred tea at a coffee shop; it’s like ordering a salad at a steakhouse. But the main reason I drink coffee on Thursdays is because that’s the day I take a little sign that says “Free Prayer”and sit at a local coffee shop for a few hours.

I like to think I have great ideas, but good advice gets all the credit for my work as a first-call parish pastor. One mentor and professor, for example, shared this: “As pastors, the first thing we have to do is take care of our people.” With that in mind, I focused my first year of ministry on spending time at people’s homes, setting up several visits a week to meet their dogs, applaud their children’s artwork and pray with them around their dinner tables.

A second bit of advice came from a clergyman who offered this: “A pastor is doing the job well when at least half of his or her time is spent outside the office.” Pastors regularly go out on hospital visits or stop by the homes of newcomers, but the administrative demands of parish ministry otherwise keep many of us shackled to our swivel chairs. For me, come Thursday mornings, after too much time within my office walls, I become cantankerous. So for everyone’s sake, I heed that good advice and break out of my sacred confines, fleeing to a local coffee shop for reading and sermon writing.

When I first started doing this last summer, I felt insecure and self-indulgent -- an incognito clergyman in shirt and tie munching an “everything” bagel with cream cheese and calling it work. I had to legitimize pastoring in Panera.

That’s when I began wearing my clergy collar each Thursday and setting up at any one of my church’s dozen or so “satellite campuses” (i.e., the coffee shops where I typically run into several parishioners I’ve missed the previous Sunday morning). I bring with me a sign that says “Free Prayer,” with a quote at the bottom from Martin Luther: “Pray, and let God worry.”

And people stop to pray with me every time.

One brisk October morning, a man I had not met walked through the ever-swinging door of the local Starbucks. Amari, from West Philadelphia, had business at the courthouse in Doylestown, Pennsylvania, the town where I serve. He looked at me and asked, “‘Free prayer’? What’s that?” I explained that I’m a pastor in town who goes out to where people are during the week to offer prayer. Tears welled up in his eyes. He placed his coffee and courthouse papers on my table and walked outside.

Many of those walking by were overtly averting their eyes, not wanting to allow me into their space, into the hustle and bustle this season brings into people's worlds. I was absolutely ok with this. After all, many of us mistrust, suspect, even judge men with cardboard signs on busy street corners. I certainly do.

Occasionally, I would cry out to the averters within earshot and say simply, I'm not here for your money, I'm simply looking for people who need hugs or prayers or both. Some would pretend I had not been heard. Others would look my way quickly then just as quickly look away. A few would smile and one or two, without stopping, would simply say, yes, pray for me. And I would.

As mentioned in that piece, most people ignored the offer, walking past as if I wasn't even there but a few did stop and I was rewarded greatly by those brief encounters.

It all brings me back to the title of this post. Should you encounter someone on the streets or in a coffee shop offering prayer, particularly someone wearing the telltale collar, what would be your response? Would you take advantage of the offer? Would you walk on by?

It's intriguing to me to know what the reasons would be for either stopping for prayer or deciding not to.